Pages

Friday, April 21, 2017

OF MOB LYNCHINGS AND OTHER RELIGIOUS VIOLENCE

ROOTS OF RAGE

Maryam
Sakeenah

How
does one move on with all this deep, searing pain over the mob lynching of a
body that bore a beautiful heart and a precious mind? And with our senses still
reeling, we hear of at least two more horror stories of blasphemy related violence.
Grueling as it is, one has to navigate a path out of the all-consuming despair,
shock and horror.

Self righteous anger over
suspicions of irreligion are all too familiar here. But the roots of the rage
go deep; into histories, ideologies, politics and lawmaking. The roots are hard
to extricate, but understanding can prevent us from consciously or unconsciously
watering and nurturing this poison tree with our words and actions. And so,
with this terrible burden of shame to bear as a Pakistani and Muslim, I attempt
an understanding.

It is unquestionable
that a number of violent crimes are driven by religious zealotry. Desperate
attempts to deny that, supposing that this would ‘save’ Islam’s image are
pathetically delusional. In doing what the students of Mardan university
did in the name of religion, they lynched their own professed faith; and when
we take the bait and draw all the wrong conclusions- either haplessly proving
that ‘religion has nothing to do with it’, or directly blaming faith and
religious doctrine itself for the atrocity, we fuel the blind hate further,
becoming the lynch mobsters sinning against a faith that has equal potential for
beauty, peace and healing.

While the mobsters let
themselves be swayed and drunken by righteous anger, deep within somewhere,
there was an uncomfortable knowledge that this was a sacrilege, an atrocity
that no religion, no god, no prophet can condone. But mobs don’t pause and
reflect; they veer into madness. While the zeal was religiously driven, it was
not inspired or guided in any direct way by religious doctrine. That
distinction is important to make.

But
equally important is the need to address why our mass behavior descends into
mob zealotry and fanatical violence driven by and in the name of religion? The
reasons go very deep.

While
allegations of blasphemy in the Mashal Khan case are far from proven, it is
clear that he professed progressive views, a critical and questioning mind. The
local mass religious mindset, however, does not allow questions and cannot
withstand intellectual challenge. This is in large part because the religious
discourse in our society is largely anti intellectual to the extent that even
an intellectual approach to religion is sneered at as deviant, threatening and
disrespectful. This simplistic, anti intellectual discourse is asserted by
wielding power and instilling fear by religious leaders, and the use of threat
and violence by those who lack the privilege of authority.

This
decadence of religious discourse in this part of the world is rooted in the
colonial past when the prestigious madrassah was systematically
marginalized and disempowered as part of the colonial education policy of
‘schooling the world.’ The cornered madrassah took refuge behind a defensive,
protectionist, insecure religious discourse, trying to hold on in a rapidly
changing milieu. In an attempt at self preservation, this defensive discourse
refused to engage and became airtight and obscurantist. This still
characterizes the madrassah and those who emerge from the system: a stubborn
refusal to intellectually engage with alternative discourses that the modern
world is teeming with. But we cannot insulate our youth from the tide of
intellectual assault from modern ideas and new patterns of thinking. There will
be questions raised, and our refusal to engage or even bother with articulating
responses will alienate thinking minds.

At
the other end of the spectrum, this anti intellectualism teaches conservative
minds to take an intellectual challenge as an audacious affront- hence violence
becomes the only ‘language’ to respond with.

In
more open societies in the West, Muslim communities have no option but to
engage and adapt, hence one sees an increasing realization of the need to come
up with an intellectually robust spirituality that does not cave in or go
berserk on encounter with difference.

Religious scholars as
well as secular voices need to realize that this is not just about having or
not having the blasphemy law. It is about the need to develop a new religious
discourse that addresses and accommodates the genuine questions that the modern
mind is full of- a discourse that arms itself with reason, not fear and
violence.

The many passionate
condemnations of the incident by religious leaders and action against hate
speech as well as public demonstrations in solidarity with the victim family
are welcome developments that help to restore one's faith in ourselves despite
this awareness of the terrible darkness engulfing us. But a deeper and more
farsighted approach for religious leaders and educators would be to guide a new
discourse on religion that contends with alternative perspectives and intellectual
challenges with maturity, wisdom and openness; a discourse that accommodates
diversity and makes respectful space for difference.

Another more personal
lesson for me is to remind myself that while self righteous consciousness of
professed faith charges mobs to blind rage, a deeper rooted faith also inspires
some like Ibn Ali Miller- or closer to home, that nameless Imam from Chitral- to stand in the midst of the storm of hate and
violence to save, make peace and heal. It is up to us to make the choice. In
our capacities and within our spheres, those who still value faith must
resolve to passionately impart compassion, empathy, tolerance and respect for
difference as part of and through faith- otherwise, our proclaimed belief
cannot prevent us from committing excesses and injustices in religion’s
name.